Special Standing Committee

[Mr. George Stevenson in the Chair]

Adoption and Children Bill

New clause 9 - Registration of private foster parents

'For section 69 of the 1989 Act (Power to prohibit private fostering) there is substituted— 
 ''69 (1) Every local authority shall keep a register of persons who act as private foster parents within their area. 
 (2) A local authority shall not register any person as a private foster parent unless it is satisfied that he is fit to act as a private foster parent. 
 (3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision as to the considerations to which a local authority is to have regard in reaching a decision as to whether to register a person as a private foster parent. 
 (4) A local authority shall cancel the registration of any person under subsection (1) if: 
 (a) it appears to them that the circumstances of the case are such that they would be justified in refusing to register that person as a private foster parent; 
 (b) the care provided by that person for any privately fostered child is, in the opinion of the authority, inadequate having regard to the needs of that child; or 
 (c) the premises in which any privately fostered child is or would be accommodated are not suitable for that purpose. 
 (5) No person shall act as a private foster parent unless he is registered under subsection (1). 
 (6) A person who contravenes subsection (5) shall be guilty of an offence. 
 (7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. 
 (8) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a local authority to register him as a private foster parent may appeal to the court in accordance with paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to this Act.''.'.—[Mr. Shaw.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [15 January], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Meg Munn: I rise to support the principles proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) in new clause 9. It is important to improve the regulation of private fostering. My hon. Friend said that he spoke with 10 years' experience of social services. I can take that and double it to 20 years.

Tim Loughton: Surely not.

Meg Munn: How kind.
 From my first experiences as an unqualified social worker to my work as assistant director of children's services with responsibility for ensuring that the regulations were enforced, I know how difficult that 
 can be. I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister that if regulations are not working, the first port of call should be to try to enforce them. Having tried to do that for many years, I strongly urge her to consider ways to improve them. 
 The reality is that most children who are privately fostered are not known to the local authority social services in the area in which they are living. I was working as assistant director in York in 1999 when the Department of Health asked us to make a proper check on how many children in the area were privately fostered. On checking, we found that our social workers knew of two such arrangements. However, the population of that local authority area was 175,000, and the average number of children looked after by the local authority was between 100 and 125, so it was most unlikely that the number of children privately fostered could be as low as two. 
 We did, of course, try further to discover where some of the privately fostered children were placed. We approached the schools, as most know who to contact in emergencies. Having said that, although ideally one would hope that schools would have a good knowledge of the children's living arrangements, the often complicated nature of many families nowadays means that we cannot always be certain. The regulations do not have enough teeth. Little energy is put into seeking out children, but having worked with private foster parents, I know that the regulations are not strong enough to ensure that the children are properly protected. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford rightly made a comparison with child minding. We know that some children are illegally minded, but regulations to enforce proper child minding have become part of our culture. As a result, few people doubt that those who look after children who are not related to them should be subject to proper checks, including the police checks set out in the regulations. The general population and, importantly, those whose children are privately fostered would, in time, understand why we had introduced much stronger regulations on private fostering. I shall not go into that, however, because my hon. Friend has covered it. 
 The new clause is not only about enforcement, but about promoting proper regulations and a more positive partnership between private foster parents and social services departments. There are already positive relationships between child minders and those who regulate them, and there are opportunities for training, providing information and ensuring that child minders are supported in what is sometimes a difficult task. Stronger regulations would allow a similar relationship to develop between social services departments and private foster carers.

Julian Brazier: As the hon. Lady knows, I am partly sympathetic to the proposed measure, but she is in danger of over-egging the pudding when she refers to the sheer warmth of the relationship between child minders and those who regulate them. As the husband of the former chairman of a playgroup, I know that the scope of the regulations on pre-school child care organisations,
 which often struggle close to the edge of financial viability, is often daunting. [Laughter.]

Meg Munn: I shall not wander down the road that we took before Christmas, because the contents of the regulations are a matter of detail.
 It has been properly emphasised from the Government Benches that we are talking not about children who leave their parents for a few hours a day, but about those who may live for many years with people whom to begin with they do not know and to whom they are not related. They may not be subject to proper checks, and their parents may not have regular contact to ensure that they are properly placed and happy. My point was that contact between professionals and those who undertake the care of children provides an opportunity to improve standards and develop ways of overcoming the difficulties that arise whenever children do not live with their own families. I want progress to be made on that. 
 I accept that there may be difficulties with the wording of the new clause and that we must ensure that whatever replaces the regulations significantly improves on them and operates properly in practice. I hope that the Minister will take account of the feelings that I have expressed in supporting the new clause.

Hilton Dawson: I am pleased to support the new clause, which my colleagues have so ably moved and supported. From my perspective of 18 years of social work experience, it seems that there is a lacuna in this area of social policy. Remedying that omission could notably improve the position of one group of children who live away from home.
 The Government have a proud record on their policies towards children and those who are particularly vulnerable because they live away from home. We are seeing wholesale improvements in the regulation and quality of living arrangements for children in residential care, foster care and the adoptive placements that we have been discussing. The Government have a proud record of response from 1997 to Sir William Utting's report, ''People Like Us''. Referring to his report, Sir William said in ''A Very Private Practice'', a recent publication from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering: 
''One of the review's general conclusions was that there should be a consistent, minimum level of safeguards for children across all the settings in which they might live away from home. Determined abusers seek out any sector in which controls and external scrutiny are weak, and incompetent carers are naturally drawn to areas in which staff selection and supervision are unknown. It was plain to the review that private fostering was among the least controlled and most open to abuse of all the environments in which children lived away from home.''
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, the issue of private fostering has been raised by him and others on a number of occasions since 1997. I cannot understand why a Government who are so committed to ensuring high standards for children living away from home, to attending to their protection and safety and to trying to restrict the opportunities of determined abusers to 
 gain access to them are so reluctant to intervene in the area. The new clause should be supported by every member of the Committee. We have had our debate and our disagreements, but I respect the solid commitment to the support and protection of children that every Committee member has plainly shown over the past few months. 
 There is nothing in the new clause that justifies any of the concerns raised by Opposition Members about some of the issues in the Bill. There is no hint of political correctness—

Jonathan R Shaw: Left or right wing.

Hilton Dawson: Left or right wing, as my hon. Friend points out. No radical new social work proposal conjured up in a left-wing sociology department is to be imposed on an unwitting public or on family life. What we have is a sensible solution to an obvious problem. Nobody is saying that it is a panacea that will immediately resolve every problem that faces children.
 The regrettable and appalling fact is that however well we improve legislation and resource social services, we will never be able to protect every child for 100 per cent. of the time from people who are determined to abuse, molest and harm him. The dangers presented by some of the people who want to abuse children in this country are well known. They are dangerous people—highly capable, intelligent and organised. 
 The situation remains grossly unsatisfactory. We have no idea whatever how many children are living away from home under private fostering arrangements. We have no idea of the conditions in which those children are living or of the potential abuse that they face. Children in boarding schools, residential care, foster care, adoptive placements and those who attend day nurseries or are cared for by child minders do not face such a situation. Privately fostered children are completely unprotected and that is completely unacceptable. 
 All that is proposed is a register. It is a simple device, which will not deal with every difficulty and problem that we will face, but which has worked with obvious effect in the case of child minders. Who here—who anywhere—would regard it as onerous that child minders should be required to register or that they should be inspected? Who would object to the day care of children being kept under close scrutiny? Why on earth should we not have a register for people who look after children, not just on a day care basis, but 24 hours a day, perhaps throughout those children's lives? 
 There is no possible sensible argument against the principle set out in the new clause. The Government should accept it and every member of the Committee should support it. I hope that they will and I hope that something substantial will be forthcoming from the Government. My hon. Friend has a tremendous record of concern on the matter and of support for this principle. The Minister has led the Committee with enormous distinction and aplomb, but if we do 
 not make real progress on the matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his new clause to a vote and that everyone will support it.

Jonathan Djanogly: The principle of registration is certainly correct, but as ever the devil is in the detail. I am unsure whether the new clause properly addresses the sensitivities of what it involves. The question is not whether there should be a register, but how people would get on it, what kind of hoops they would have to jump through, and what they would have to do to stay on it. That needs a lot of fleshing out. Foster parents are enormously valuable to the system and the position is difficult. As hon. Members have rightly said, such parents have to be professional and there are standards of conduct to which we would all expect them to adhere, but at the same time, one is looking for a warm family atmosphere and the support that a family can provide, and those are not the easiest qualities to regulate.
 The principle of regulation is not wrong, but we must be careful. We need to appreciate that, in practice, the issue will be sensitive. In many parts of the country, it is very hard to get new foster parents. I have had experience of that in an inner-city area where there was a dearth of new foster parents. Relatively large houses are needed, which are hard to come by in cities. That means that the supply of foster parents is limited. I remember how we treasured them.

Kevin Brennan: I am not sure what argument the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he realise that we are talking about private foster parents, and that the regulations would have no impact on the shortages to which he refers?

Jonathan Djanogly: The proposal would have an impact. This is a question not of new foster parents, but of existing ones. People who have been foster parents for 20 years, for example, and have a good reputation, may not choose to remain foster parent when regulations are thrown at them. If they have to go through a series of hoops to get on the register, a lot of them will drop out.

Hilton Dawson: Could the people who would drop out of private fostering if regulations were introduced possibly be precisely those whom no one would want to look after children?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That may be so, but many others would drop out.

Julian Brazier: There was much laughter from Labour Members when I raised the issue of playgroups. They may think it funny, but many decent people who ran successful playgroups dropped out and gave up because of heavy-handed regulations.

Jonathan Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Someone came to my surgery who ran a playgroup that was closed down when new regulations came in last year. That person could not afford to comply with the regulations, and did not want to go through all the extra hoops.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I shall continue my point. The same thing could happen to private foster parents if we do not tread carefully. For many foster parents, fostering does not provide their main income; they do it not only for extra money, but because they feel that it is giving something to the community in which they live. If we go in too hard on regulation, those people will start dropping out. Why should they go through extra hoops of regulation?

Hilton Dawson: I cannot believe what I am hearing. I was far too generous in my earlier remarks. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people who look after other people's children 24 hours a day should not be prepared to be on a local authority register? What does he think that they might have to hide?

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not listened to a word that I have said, because I began my remarks by saying that there should be a register. The question is not whether there should be a register, but how people would get on to that register and what they would have to go through to maintain their entry on that register. I speak from experience. If we go overboard with regulation, foster parents who are on the margin, for whom fostering is not vital to their income—

Meg Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I shall finish my point. If we suddenly say to people who foster because they feel that it is important to put something back into the community and because they love children that they must go through 20 hoops, many will drop out.

Kevin Brennan: My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said that he had 10 years' experience in the field of social work, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that he had 18 years' experience and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said that she had 20 years' experience. In addition, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said that he had several years' experience in social services—as the chairman of Westminster social services, I think. That shows a contrast, in that some learn from their experience and others do not. The arguments made by Labour Members are based on practical experience, while the arguments of the hon. Member for Huntingdon seem to be based on that right-wing political correctness that we discussed—that absolute revulsion at the suggestion of any state role in regulating private activities such as private fostering. I freely admit that I have no experience at all in this sphere, but I am staggered, as any member of the public would be, to find out that the protection afforded to children who are privately fostered is less than that afforded to children who are put in the care of a child minder.
 I do have experience of using a child minder, and it was a relief to me as a parent to know that that child minder was registered with the local authority, that police checks had been carried out and that my child was safe in that person's care.

Jonathan Djanogly: The important point is that, provided the local authority has been as diligent as it should, experience should show that someone who has been a
 foster parent for 10 or 20 years is a good foster parent. The average length of time for which foster parents care for particular children is short, so an experienced foster parent will very likely have cared for a large number—

George Stevenson: Order. The hon. Member was making a lengthy intervention; I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has got the point.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows that he misunderstands the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and which people he is concerned about. My hon. Friend is not referring to experienced foster carers who are known to the local authority, and who have fostered children through the local authority. He is worried about abuses such as those that happen in London in particular, often involving children whose parents do not even live in this country, and sometimes amounting to domestic slavery. The foster carers relevant to our debate are not even required to register with the local authority. We should try to do something about that.
 I praise my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued the matter and I hope that the Minister will be able to give him some reassurance. He has conceded that perhaps his proposal would not achieve all that is necessary in the context, but it should certainly be taken seriously and deserves a positive response.

Julian Brazier: It is a pity that what has been a well tempered Committee, with much consensus and relatively few votes, should end in blows on the final day.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is because it is the last day.

Julian Brazier: I thank the Government Whip for that gratifying thought.
 The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is to be congratulated on raising the important issue dealt with by the new clause. Its importance has been recognised by all hon. Members who have spoken, on both sides of the Committee. 
 The hon. Gentleman knows, as like me he is a Kent Member, of the work that I have been involved in, to which I have alluded, in an effort to organise police registration for those who provide holiday placements for foreign children. We now have a successful voluntary registration scheme for every relevant east Kent school. Certainly all of them in the Canterbury city council area are collaborating. Six of the first 12 police checks turned up people who either had committed serious criminal offences or were known child abusers. The work that I have done in this context leaves me in no doubt that the case for police checks is overwhelming. 
 However, the new clause is not only a matter of police checks; it concerns the wider issue of registration. Labour Members did not strengthen their case by their attitude to the comments made—with the experience of chairing an elected body 
 responsible for social services—by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon about the danger that over-heavy registration may lead to a drying-up, as it has elsewhere. I referred to it having done so in relation to playgroups. 
 It is all very well for hon. Members to say that they have huge experience of responsibility for operating regulations. That is an extremely valuable job. I am not the type to knock social workers in general, and whenever I cite specific abuses I am careful to make it clear that I am talking about small numbers of people and specific local authorities. Their profession is vital, and they must be proud to serve in it. However, I ask hon. Members to be clear that there is another consideration besides the important work of regulation: the people who have to provide the services. They have vital interests and concerns too, and there will be a problem if fewer people are willing to come forward.

Hilton Dawson: I do not think that there would be a problem if fewer people were prepared to come forward for private foster care. I do not care if the source of private foster carers dries up. If people want to be private foster carers, they should go on a register. If they are not prepared to do so, there must be a problem and parents should not place their children in such foster care. We are talking not about properly approved and supported foster carers used by local authorities, but about a small—

George Stevenson: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye again, he may do so, but he must prevent his interventions from stretching out too much.

Julian Brazier: You rightly remind us of that, Mr. Stevenson, on our last day when we have a lot left to cover. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view, and he would not expect me to. Some people need fostering services and for one reason or another do not want to put their children into local authority care.
 I have fought for police checks on many subjects for a long time. I made my first speech in the House on child abuse 13 years ago. It is important to remember that some of the worst and most ineffective bodies at putting proper police checks on their foster carers have been certain local authorities. Four or five in London could be named. They operated long, detailed and intrusive registers, but with no proper police checks. 
 The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has made an overwhelming case for police checks on the subject. He mentioned the problem from west Africa, which is important, but checks should apply across the board. The jury is still out on the issue of wider registration.

Robert Walter: I want to intervene in the debate briefly, as a member of the Select Committee on Health when it produced its report on looked-after children. At that stage, we were considering Sir William Utting's report, which highlighted the problem.
 I have tremendous sympathy with those who have proposed the new clause. My concern, which has to 
 some extent been reflected by the comments made by my hon. Friends, is that I would not want such a new clause to impinge on informal arrangements. New section 69(5) of the Children Act 1989, as proposed by the new clause, would make it a criminal offence for anyone to 
''act as a private foster parent unless he is registered under subsection (1)''.
 That would impose or impinge on informal arrangements that parents might want to make for their children with family friends or others. I do not have a problem with the principle of a register. My problem is with the exclusive nature of the two proposed new subsections, which would make it a criminal offence for an individual to look after somebody else's children, acting as though he were a foster parent.

Hilton Dawson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but there would be no need to register if one were looking after a child for less than 28 days. There is no intention in the new clause of impinging on such informal arrangements with neighbours and family friends.

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations, but I do not share his confidence that, if the provision were enacted, social workers and others would interpret it in that way.

Jacqui Smith: This has been a very useful debate on an important issue that is worrying in many respects, particularly those raised by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and others have spoken passionately and with great knowledge about the subject, and I recognise their commitment to expressing the concern about adequate protection for children in private fostering arrangements. As my hon. Friend said, the subject is especially disturbing given that the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Victoria Climbié case is taking place. I shall return to the Climbié case because it highlights the dilemma that we as a community face when considering what action might be effective. All Committee members agree that whatever action we take should achieve the objectives that we set for it and should not have detrimental or counterproductive side effects.
 It is easy to seek a legislative solution to all the problems that are brought to our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre was right to say that the proposed provision is not about political correctness, however, it might reflect our belief that we, as legislators and regulators, can always solve problems through legislation and regulation. Sometimes we should step back and consider whether that is possible. 
 We must be clear about the issues. The hon. Member for Huntingdon made some interesting points, but I am not sure that he was clear about our views on private fostering. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford set out the legal position on private fostering. The greatest number of children who are placed with private foster carers are those who stay with relatives and friends for 
 relatively short periods and for a variety of reasons; they include those whose parents have gone abroad to work and who leave them with relatives so that their education is not disturbed. 
 For example, in my 11 years of teaching, I often came across children—perhaps in the February or March—who were about to take their GCSEs but whose parents were moving to another part of the country with the younger children to work. Quite understandably and sensibly, those parents would arrange for the child to stay with a close friend or neighbour until they finished their GCSEs. That is the sort of arrangement that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) was talking about, and it seems completely appropriate. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, it may be covered by the new clause.

Hilton Dawson: I agree with my hon. Friend; I have no doubt that the new clause would cover such an arrangement. I would be obliged, however, if she would tell me what would be so onerous about families registering with the local authority when they take on the huge responsibility of looking after children for several months during their GCSEs.

Jacqui Smith: That is where we come to the importance of looking at the details. First, the family would already need to notify the local authority of the arrangement. Secondly, we should bear it in mind—this may or may not be acceptable—that the new clause would require the family to register in advance. We must be careful not to intrude into family and community life in a way that is unwarranted and which might make people less likely to take on such responsibilities. We should bear in mind other examples of what might be involved.
 Adolescents might fall out with their parents and move in temporarily with a friend's parents or move to a friend's home because they cannot get on with their step-parents. A woman who recently came to my constituency surgery was looking after a 15-year-old who had fallen out quite severely with his parents and step-parents. She came to me because she wanted support with that arrangement and was concerned about the child. Perhaps social services should have spoken to her; I suspect that she would have been willing for them to do so. We must be careful not to put people off doing what I consider to be a good turn—the sort of thing that I would hope friends and families in our community would want to do.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more. Does she not accept that it is precisely when a good turn needs to be done that a completely inappropriate person can occasionally offer to help, and the child can be placed at risk?

Jacqui Smith: Yes, I accept that, which is why I said that there were important issues for us to consider. The lady to whom I referred told me that the local authority would have been looking after the child had she not taken him in. That might have been a good thing, but there are wider implications for the recruitment of foster carers and the extent to which we depend on them rather than communities and families.
 Of course, some children are privately fostered for long periods and may be sent from abroad, as was mentioned on Tuesday. That includes the practice of sending African children to England to benefit from a good education in the expectation of improving their life chances, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said on Tuesday. 
 Some mention has also been made of the despicable spectre of child trafficking. In relation to recent publicity resulting from reports on ''Today'', for example, it is worth placing it on record that the Government have made it clear that if people want to come forward—confidentially if they wish—with evidence of such activity, we would most certainly take action across Government. It is clearly unacceptable that children are trafficked in the way that some people have suggested. 
 The Government are currently negotiating a framework decision with the European Union. It will be a binding EU instrument, and it will require the criminalisation of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of exploiting their labour and services or for sexual exploitation. The United Kingdom will be required to implement the instrument within two years of its adoption.

Tim Loughton: I am encouraged by what the Minister is saying; she knows that I raised the subject recently in Westminster Hall. Do the changes that she describes include a provision for closing a loophole in the law? At the moment, child sex traffickers can take young women abroad, particularly women from west Africa who come into the country through Sussex, and they usually end up in Italy. That is not an offence if the girls seem to go willingly, although they are under all sorts threats. I hope that the Department is looking at that loophole.

Jacqui Smith: I shall certainly look at that now that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. That probably emphasises the need for us to take action not only across Government but with our international partners, in order to ensure that it is tackled.
 Last year, the Government set up Project Reflex, a multi-agency taskforce to co-ordinate anti-trafficking operations, and to develop the intelligence and strategic planning necessary to underpin them. Led by the National Crime Squad, it brings together all the agencies involved in combating organised immigration crime. It has had a number of successful operations involving overseas partners. 
 I have made it clear that the Government start with the premise that the state should intervene in family life only when it has to. We want to enable parents and the wider community to take their responsibilities seriously, and not to intervene without need. I have given examples of when we need to balance the real issues of child protection with the legitimate concerns of family and community. However, it should not be, nor is it, an area where the state has no responsibility and no remit. Although I recognise what my hon. Friends have said about whether the current 
 provisions are effective, it is worth reminding ourselves of the current legal position. 
 The Children Act was framed in recognition of the risks associated with private fostering. It requires the local authority to satisfy itself that the welfare of the child is satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted by others. It does so by supervising, regulating and advising in respect of private placements. The local authority is required to visit at specified intervals and to report on those visits. The regulations set out detailed requirements. 
 In fulfilling its duty, the local authority must apprise itself of the following: the duration and purpose of the fostering arrangements; the child's physical, intellectual, emotional, social and behavioural development; cultural issues; financial arrangements; medical and dental care; education arrangements; standards of care; the suitability of the foster parents to look after the child; the suitability of the household and the environment; contact arrangements between the foster parents and the child's parents; and the wishes and feelings of the child. Section 7 guidance—the statutory guidance for local authorities that supports the regulations—sets out the way in which the issues must be dealt with, which includes making a police check. Local authorities have the power to impose requirements or, if serious concerns arise, to prohibit the fostering arrangement. 
 It is an offence to accommodate a privately fostered child in any premises in contravention of a prohibition imposed by a local authority. The maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment, a £5,000 fine or both. Similarly, a person who is disqualified from privately fostering a child and who fails to notify the local authority and obtain its written consent before entering into a private fostering arrangement is guilty of an offence punishable by up to six months in prison, a maximum fine of £5,000 or both.

Julian Brazier: Will the Minister clarify whether that applies to children who are fostered on premises in which such a banned person is living? There is of course an obvious loophole—the person can get a spouse or partner formally to do the fostering instead.

Jacqui Smith: I certainly suspect and hope that that would be covered by inspections of the kind that I described in outlining the regulations, but I shall try to obtain further details.
 Refusing to allow a privately fostered child to be visited by an officer of the local authority is also an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £3,000. However, despite those provisions—it is important to recognise that there are significant provisions in law—the Government are ready to acknowledge that there are difficulties in private fostering, and I am committed to ensuring that the system at the very least works effectively. 
 I am not convinced that establishing a register would alone solve all the problems. The issue may be not just registration but awareness. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford disagrees about that. We are concerned with something that is a private arrangement. There is 
 little public awareness about what constitutes private fostering, and few people realise that there is a requirement for them to notify anyone of their arrangement.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend has talked about awareness. Does she concede that it is completely inadequate that there should have been a wait of two years for the Government to do what they said about conducting an awareness campaign?

Jacqui Smith: I was about to come to future action by the Government.
 The Government undertook to produce an awareness campaign on private fostering, following the response to the children's safeguards review. In August 2000, the chief inspector of social services wrote to all councils reminding them of their responsibilities. That year we commissioned the social services inspectorate to undertake an inspection of private fostering to give us more information on councils' practice. 
 In 2001, we prepared and issued a leaflet for professionals working in education, health and social services, raising the issue of private fostering and repeating messages about notification, and we are now at the final stage of planning a second stage of the awareness campaign, with information targeted at the public, particularly the most frequently involved groups and where awareness is low. 
 I want to cover two further issues before I return to the question of what further action can be taken. First, comparisons—favourable and unfavourable—have been made between the registration of child minders and the proposals in the new clause. Although there may be arguments in favour of the new clause, I am not sure that such comparisons are the most powerful argument. Child minding is clearly identified as a specific type of activity; child minders are registered to look after the under-eights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out, people looking for child care are dealing with a market. Child minders register prospectively with the local authority to show that they are available for business, as well as to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place. The approach taken by private foster carers may be totally different. They are often friends of the family, and to that extent their situation is different.

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend reconsider that remark? There are myriad ways in which friends and neighbours take on child minding. The child minding regulations have no effect of preventing those arrangements.

Jacqui Smith: That may well be. The issues relating to potential regulation and registration of private fostering were considered in some detail in relation to the regulation of child minding, so to some extent my hon. Friend supports my point. When we consider further regulation, we must be careful not to squeeze out the good while tackling the bad.
 The question of 42 days or 28 has been mentioned. When considering the Utting report, we recognise that current arrangements cover students who come to the United Kingdom to attend language school and stay 
 for six weeks in the summer holidays to improve their language skills. They are often fostered with families known to the school, which means that some local authority areas contain a population who fall within the category of privately fostered children, but may not need the protection of the notification process to support them. 
 The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned the development of a code of practice. That will introduce some safeguards for the protection of students of which schools can inform parents. I welcome that. Although the Children Act 1989 has not been amended to take account of the threshold of 42 rather than 28 days, a safeguard is thus provided for those students and their parents, who can directly check and compare to discover which schools follow the code of practice. 
 I return to the question of further action and what the Government can do in the light of the serious concerns raised by hon. Members in this debate. The Government are committed to taking the action necessary to protect all children, including those who are privately fostered. We have already taken action through our campaign and in establishing the Climbié inquiry. I assure the Committee that we will examine carefully the findings of the SSI inspection reports and the results of the Climbié inquiry. We will also consider the range of concerns that hon. Members have expressed, many of which I share. 
 Today I asked my Department to prepare for a review of private fostering. We must not get in the way of the excellent work being carried out by Lord Laming on the Climbié inquiry. The review will be ready to start at a time that fits best with that timetable, to enable the Government to respond as broadly as possible to the recommendations and conclusions stemming from that inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made important points about the need to safeguard children in private fostering. I hope that he accepts that the Government take the matter seriously. There are complicated factors to be considered, but I assure him that the Government are committed to a review of the subject and of the issues he raised. 
 The review will involve the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association, other stakeholders and the voluntary sector. The review will necessitate consultation across Government, with the children and young people's unit, the Department for Education and Skills, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as consultation with carers and children. 
 Although I do not suggest that my hon. Friend give up his zeal—I suspect that he will never do so—I hope that my assurance that the Government take the issues seriously will persuade him not to press the new clause to a Division.

Jonathan R Shaw: I thank all members of the Committee for taking part in or listening to our debate on the new clause. My hon. Friends who are former social work colleagues outdid me by a whole hairline of years in
 social work—[Laughter.] Perhaps a decade of experience is not enough for me to make a strong case.
 Several hon. Members remarked that private fostering is one of the few gaping holes in the net of protection for children against potential abusers and poor standards of care. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre quoted the Utting report. The inquiry team identified private fostering as the environment in which fostered children were least controlled and most open to abuse. It is one of the most risky environments in which children live. 
 We compare regulation of playgroups and informal arrangements for looking after children who are doing GCSEs, but we should consider the cases of children who come from west Africa and live here for years, and children who are beaten with iron bars by strangers. They are a world apart from the subject under discussion. When hon. Members use the former examples, they are either missing the point or do not want to address the issues. Registration would close the loophole. 
 My hon. Friend the Minister says that the Government are concerned. She says also that most of the children involved are from west Africa. I might agree with that assertion, but given that the Department of Health has not collated those figures since 1991 because it found that they were unreliable, her figures cannot have come from her Department. 
 The ADSS and the LGA are seriously worried about the situation; they have tried for more than a decade to persuade people to register as private fosterers. The Department of Health says that 50 per cent. of people who foster privately do not notify, but I do not know where it gets that percentage because it does not collate the figures. Given that that is the case, how can we know whether the awareness campaign has had an effect? 
 The hon. Member for Huntingdon, who was chair of Westminster social services, talked about losing private fosterers as a potential resource. I agree that people might fall by the wayside if a requirement for registration were introduced. However, the former director of Westminster social services, who is now at Medway, certainly supports a registration scheme. I do not know whether they have ever discussed the matter. 
Mr. Djanogly indicated dissent.

Jonathan R Shaw: That is a shame.
 There is world of difference between informal arrangements and children coming from west Africa and staying for many years. I concede the Minister's point about the Victoria Climbié inquiry. There were other factors involved in the case: private fostering is not the only reason why that child suffered in such an horrendous way. However, we must ask ourselves whether that tragedy would have occurred if we had run an awareness campaign at airports and our embassies throughout west Africa telling people, ''If your child is coming to the UK, make sure that the people who will care for him or her have been checked by social services.'' If that had been done, I doubt that 
 Victoria Climbié would have gone to the people in question, who were not relatives as defined in the regulations. 
 The comparison between child minding and private foster care is sound. During consideration of the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000 it was suggested that the regulation of child minding might discourage people from offering their services as informal babysitters. That argument can always be made, but it is an argument for doing nothing. Most of the people in this country would agree that if someone looks after a child who comes from abroad and stays for many years, the minimum requirement should be that they register with the local authority. Yet we are told that currently 50 per cent. of such people do not even bother to do that.

Jonathan Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman speaks authoritatively and well. The question of foreign children being privately fostered in Britain is of special concern, and the example he used, of the Climbié case, is pertinent. However, even if the social worker in that case, who saw the child several times, had been dealing with the registration of private foster parents, it would not have made any difference: in that case, registration would have made no difference. Once the issue had been identified—

George Stevenson: Order. Once again, the intervention is too long.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is not for us to pre-empt the Laming inquiry, but it would be a reasonable bet that the people who looked after Victoria Climbié would have been deemed unsuitable to register as private foster parents.

Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that although we are sometimes frustrated by our own Government, that intervention by the hon. Member for Huntingdon shows why the Conservative party is not fit to be in charge of public services?

George Stevenson: Order. The debate has now gone on for one hour and 10 minutes. It has been an excellent debate, but I urge Members to stick to the issues in the new clause.

Jonathan R Shaw: I shall conclude my remarks now.
 I have been involved with the issue of private fostering for many years, both inside and outside the House. Given the disparity between what the Government said they would do and what they have actually done, a slight degree of scepticism is not inappropriate. In 1999, they said that they would take steps to enforce current regulations on private fostering more effectively, yet we had to wait a year for the awareness campaign. The Government also said that when parliamentary time allowed, legislation would be introduced to target private fostering placements lasting more than 42 days. That has not happened. 
 As I have said before, I stood in this very Room during the debate on the Care Standards Bill and made the case for this provision. I accepted then that although the Government were concerned and took the matter seriously, they did not see the need for registration. Two years later, the Government are 
 saying the same thing, except that before they said that they would find parliamentary time for appropriate legislation. There have been many opportunities to find parliamentary time for legislation to protect one of the most vulnerable groups of children. I regret to say that I an unable to withdraw the motion and I shall press the new clause to a vote. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 7.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 10Amendment of section 17 of the Children Act 1989

New clause 10 - Amendment of section 17 of the

'. In section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of support for children and their families) after subsection (1) there is inserted— 
 ''(1A) In any case where a local authority have assessed a child as being a child in need they shall take such reasonable steps as are required to enable that need to be met.''.'.—[Margaret Moran.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Margaret Moran: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

George Stevenson: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 11—Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989—
'. In Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and families) after subsection (10) there is inserted— 
 ''(10A) (1) Where a local authority have, in assessing whether a child is a child in need, determined that he requires accommodation to enable him to live with his family, they shall provide that child (or a member of his family) with such assistance as may reasonably be required, if, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote his welfare. 
 (2) Assistance required under subsection (1) may include— 
 (a) assistance by way of advice to the child or to a person having parental responsibility for him or caring for him; 
 (b) assistance by means of cash payments or loans to a person whom the local authority reasonably believe to be able to provide accommodation to the child (and to any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him); 
 (c) the provision of accommodation (which shall include accommodation secured from another person).''.'.

Margaret Moran: I would like to make it clear that new clause 10 is contingent on new clause 11. In the interests of saving time, I hope that the Minister will accept that the principle of what I am about to say is relatively straightforward and has been discussed elsewhere.
 The new clauses are designed to rectify a problem that has developed out of recent case law, which means that local authorities are now unable to provide accommodation to vulnerable children and their families under the Children Act 1989. Shelter, which supports the new clauses, believes that the Children 
 Act is now unworkable in that respect, and that the outcome of the recent case of A v. London Borough of Lambeth makes it unlawful for local authorities to provide accommodation under the Children Act, so that their only option is to take children into care rather than provide a home for a vulnerable family. Families are being split up; already, children have been removed from some. 
 I feel strongly about this issue. I cut my political teeth on homelessness and campaigning for the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I was working in a social services department at that time. I spent only two years working in social services, although the Committee might like to note that I subsequently worked for 20 years in a housing department. My first job was as a duty clerk: I was responsible for receiving homeless families, offering them a rail ticket away from whichever floor they had last slept on, or offering to take their children into care. 
 That is one of the reasons why I campaigned for the 1977 Act. That campaign started after the documentary ''Cathy Come Home'', which revolutionised views on homelessness legislation and the rights of the homeless. Little did I realise that more than two decades after my work in housing we would be back in a similar position, except that for local authorities dealing with some of our most vulnerable families, their only option would be to take the children into care. It is ironic that attempts are being made in another place to rewrite ''Cathy Come Home'' with a happy ending. 
 The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 provided the safety net for homeless families. Despite a setback under the Conservative Government, the Housing Act 1996 provided a duty on local authorities to accommodate homeless households that were not intentionally homeless and in priority need. When homeless families were deemed intentionally homeless, the Children Act 1989 came into force to enable a further safety net for some of those vulnerable children to take effect. That Act is especially important, because approximately 9,000 households—the majority families with children—are found to be intentionally homeless every year. 
 Through long experience in housing, I know that decisions on intentional homelessness are notoriously complex; they can appear extremely unjust and are often challenged. Families may experience financial difficulty and sell their home to avoid falling into debt or repossession. Sadly, many women who flee domestic violence are deemed intentionally homeless because they have abandoned their council home. Such families are among the most vulnerable in our society. Parents in such families need help to get back on their feet, not the fear of their children being removed. 
 The consequences of being found intentionally homeless are severe. The household is given only limited time in temporary accommodation, usually 28 days, and is often barred from the housing register. In such circumstances, its options may be extremely 
 limited: for example, such a family may find it difficult to afford the deposit and rent or key money often required by landlords in the private rented sector. 
 The Children Act provided important means to secure vital assistance for families with children when the housing department was not under a duty to house them. Families are often given assistance by social services authorities under section 17 of the Children Act, which enables those departments to provide deposits and rent up front if necessary. Furthermore, in some cases, accommodation can be provided under section 20 of that Act. 
 Although a reasonably satisfactory safety net has been provided by the combination of duties placed on housing departments under homelessness legislation and the powers available to social services departments under the Children Act, recent case law suggests that those safeguards have, in effect, been removed. The Court of Appeal decision in April on an application for judicial review by a person, G, found that section 17 of the Children Act merely conferred a power, not a duty, for local authorities to provide assistance, and that the duty of accommodation under section 20 was to house the child, not the parents. The High Court restated that judgment in the case of A v. London Borough of Lambeth in May; the decision was reconfirmed in the Court of Appeal in November. 
 Those decisions will have a significant impact on homeless families who seek assistance from social services departments. Because of the judgments, social services authorities are likely to provide help in far fewer cases, and when help is provided, an offer to house the children separately—that is, to take the children into care—is much more likely under section 20. 
 Clearly, parents will not want to be separated from their children. In practice, families confronted only with an offer to take the child into care will desperately search for an alternative that will enable them to stay together, no matter how inadequate or short term it is. Often, the most vulnerable families will be lost to the system; housing departments and social services will lose contact with them. Some families with great difficulties may be lost in terms of the care that can be afforded to vulnerable children, so placing the children at further risk. 
 Shelter has already gathered evidence that since the judgments social services departments have significantly reduced the assistance that they provide to homeless families under the Children Act and, in some cases, limited their assistance to an offer to take the children into care. One example is that of a north of England family with four children, two of whom have special needs. The family was evicted from its home because of rent arrears of about £1,000. The father, who has a drink problem, left the mother to look after the children. Having found the family intentionally homeless, the housing department put them up in bed and breakfast for 28 days. 
 At the end of that period, the social services department was approached. It refused—twice—to 
 assist. In the meantime, the mother managed to find accommodation: a farmer allowed the children to sleep in a caravan and the mother to sleep in a car next to it. The department eventually suggested that the children go into voluntary care during half term, so that the mother could search for accommodation. She accepted the offer, and despite receiving no additional assistance from social services, she managed to find new and suitable accommodation. However, the department refused to return the children until an unspecified future date. 
 The mother was given permission to see the children for two hours a week, and she was not allowed to see them on Christmas day. As well as being separated from their mother, the children were split up. One was placed at a residential school, two had been placed in one foster home, and the other with different foster parents. One child was put on the child protection register because of the mother's homelessness. The latest information on the case is that two of the children are back with their mother, and that a meeting is planned to resolve the future of the other two. 
 It is not satisfactory that children can be taken into care and split up in that way, leaving no possibility of the mother reuniting her family in the near future. The case raises serious welfare issues, because the Children Act sets out the legal responsibilities of social services authorities to protect children in need. One of the central principles of that Act is that the best interests of children are kept to the fore and that families are kept together wherever possible, with children taken into care as a last resort. 
 Shelter has found many other similar examples. There is concern about the legal ramifications of such judgments. The view of a leading barrister is that the effect of the two cases 
''is to change radically the way in which authorities can be required to accommodate the carers of children. Firstly, claimants cannot rely on section 20 as imposing a duty on authorities to house the parents or carers of such children. Secondly, although section 17 requires an authority to assess a child's needs, it does not give rise to a duty to meet those needs''.
 Concern is widespread among children's charities, not least the National Children's Bureau, which has said that 
''it is a nonsense for the law to be used as a vehicle to tear families apart and damage the children it is trying to protect''.
 The issue has been discussed in both Houses during the passage of the Homelessness Bill. It was referred to in another place yesterday: Lord Falconer acknowledged the need to change the Children Act, as well as strengthen the Homelessness Bill, to ensure greater joint working between housing and social services departments to protect the most vulnerable homeless people. 
 New clause 11 would amend schedule 2 to the Children Act. It would overcome the fact that social services departments can no longer provide housing assistance to both parents and children by adding a specific power to provide assistance in securing accommodation under section 17 of that Act. It would also allow social services departments discretion to provide a range of services in line with 
 the type of assistance that they have traditionally provided under that Act. 
 New clause 10 would amend section 17 of the Children Act, and would provide for social services departments to take reasonable steps to meet the needs that they have identified. That is required to overcome the fact that the court dealing with the case of G found that section 17 did not require an authority to do anything to meet a child's needs, even though it might require the authority to assess them. Without such an amendment, there is concern that it would still be lawful for an authority not to provide any help to meet the needs that it had identified. 
 I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to close loopholes that put children at risk. The new clauses are intended to rectify the difficulties arising from recent case law.

Henry Bellingham: I rise to support the new clauses. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has made a strong case for the new clauses, and I hope that we shall incorporate them into the Bill. However, as she mentioned, other Bills are before Parliament and, thanks to the vagaries of the system's operation, the new provisions might not be included in the form that she would like.
 We all have examples in our constituencies of parents who are unnecessarily separated from their children. Time and again social services departments say that unless proper housing is sorted out, the parent cannot have the child back. That is understandable, but often a bit of common sense would resolve the situation immediately. I agree with the hon. Lady that care should be the last resort in such cases. 
 In some cases it is right to take children into care, for example if they are at risk, or if their mother is suffering in some way—perhaps she has had a mental breakdown—and they are neglected. However, we are talking about cases in which the parent or parents are keen to keep the child at home but there is no home available for the family. That is why the law should include a requirement for the local authority to provide such accommodation. It is not a great deal to ask. 
 Housing authorities have many obligations, but there is a significant loophole in the circumstances we are debating. Conservative members know that the average bed and breakfast in the country is pretty inadequate. Bed and breakfasts can be pretty squalid places for families, so it is not surprising that social services departments say that they are not suitable places in which to bring up children. 
 However, housing can be made available. I worked out the other day that there are a significant number of family-size units in my constituency are either empty, or occupied by elderly pensioner couples. My local authority is, rightly, looking vigorously at providing more sheltered accommodation for pensioners and pensioner couples, so that such units can be released. In addition, more than 50 family-size units in Kings Lynn and west Norfolk are empty. A more proactive and determined policy of bringing those units back into readiness for accommodation for families would 
 make more housing available. It is a question of management and efficiency. Replicating that policy in every constituency would make thousands of family-sized units available throughout the country. 
 I do not accept the Minister's argument that the provisions would put too great a strain on housing authorities. The hon. Member for Luton, South has tabled a sensible pair of new clauses and I hope that the Minister will accept them.

Tim Loughton: I support the thrust of the new clauses, and I apologise that, due to a prior engagement, I have to leave before the end of this sitting. That is a shame, because I hoped to be able to discuss the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Luton, South about contact arrangements, with which I have a great deal of sympathy.
 The hon. Lady says that she is something of a baby in terms of experience of social services. However, I know that she has a good deal of experience in housing matters—in the past year we have both been on Committees that dealt with such issues, such as the one considering the Homelessness Bill. That experience is relevant to this Bill because it concerns the break-up of families, which is sometimes due largely to women fleeing domestic violence. On that score, I must declare an interest as patron of The Women's Refuge Project, Brighton, which has given me a great deal of briefing about the matters that we are discussing. 
 We must do everything we can to prevent families from being split up. The hon. Lady mentioned cases in which the lack of availability of accommodation results in children being put on the child protection register and separated from their mother, father or guardian. That can be the start of a slippery slope for the welfare of the child—he gets into trouble and the whole family in difficult circumstances fragments very quickly. 
 When we were considering the Homelessness Bill we heard of cases—we have all experienced them—in which people were deemed to have intentionally made themselves homeless, simply because they were fleeing domestic violence within their family unit, or the violence of neighbours committed for any of a host of reasons. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) gave examples of people who were escaping from racial violence, or who feared the prospect of it if they stayed in their homes. Had they remained in their homes, their lives would have been at risk, so they preferred to sleep on the floors and sofas of people who gave them refuge. However, they fell foul of the legislation because they were deemed not to be homeless unintentionally, and consequently were not given the support they so desperately needed from local authorities. 
 Such circumstances have a great impact on the welfare of children who are caught up through no fault of their own or, in most cases, of their parents. Given that the paramount consideration in the Bill is the welfare of the child, the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Luton, South are highly pertinent. Conservative Members have a good deal of 
 sympathy with her and I shall be interested in the Minister's response. 
 The overriding problem is the shortage of housing. However good the provisions of the Homelessness Bill, which we supported, and however good the intentions behind the new clauses, if they are adopted, little will be achieved if the goods are not delivered to the local authorities charged with providing accommodation and the support that goes with it. Last year the fewest new social houses since the 1920s were built, and the number of people in temporary accommodation and bed-and-breakfast has risen substantially. The problem is not being solved, despite the assurances received from the Prime Minister downwards. 
 I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Luton, South that the sort of cases that she advocates should have priority, but one family's promotion is another's demotion. Because finite resources and a finite amount of accommodation are available, it is a case of shifting priorities. Some hon. Members might take issue with my views on this matter, but the Government, through the Homelessness Bill, have raised the priority in the housing ladder stakes of people who are coming out of prison and have criminal records. The result is a reduction in the amount of accommodation available for many other deserving cases, including homeless families. 
 We sympathise greatly with the hon. Lady's intentions. There is a loophole that needs closing. We need to do more to support families who find themselves in circumstances that have desperate implications for their children. In giving our support, we shall be interested to hear from the Minister what practical steps she can take, given that we are talking about finite resources being available from her Government for housing.

Jacqui Smith: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South for tabling the new clauses and bringing an important issue to the Committee's attention.
 As my hon. Friend said, two recent judgments in the Court of Appeal have caused concern among councils with social services responsibilities. The new clauses are intended to deal with the problem. Since it was first brought to the Department's attention, my officials and I have done a considerable amount of work to assess the size of the problem and the best way to tackle it. My officials have met officials from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, social services directors and representatives of Shelter. Furthermore, I have discussed the issue with ministerial colleagues. 
 As my hon. Friend said, the judgment in the Lambeth case casts doubt on the ability of local authorities to provide accommodation for children in need and their families under section 17 of the Children Act. If they lose that ability, an important element of the support package for children in need and their families will be removed. That would affect not only families that are not owed a main housing duty under housing legislation—because they are 
 intentionally homeless or not habitually resident, for example—but families that need emergency accommodation because they were fleeing domestic violence. Young people who need accommodation in those cases do not necessarily need the intensive support provided by foster care. 
 The Government want to restore the position and to place beyond doubt the fact that local authorities have a power to provide accommodation under section 17 as a safety net. It is important that the provision of accommodation is not raised above other assistance that may be provided under section 17 and that specifically identifying the power to provide accommodation in section 17 has no unintended consequences. The new clauses, however, go slightly further. New clause 10 is slightly unclear, but seems to be intended to place a duty on local authorities to meet the assessed needs of individual children. That is more than the existing legislation requires and is not necessary. 
 The recent Court of Appeal judgments should not be read as meaning that a local authority need not offer assistance under section 17 to a child in need. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend referred to the Barnet case, in which it was clear that the local authority had offered help, although it was not acceptable to the mother. It is clear from A v. London Borough of Lambeth that the section 17 duty is a general target duty, which is not individually enforceable by any specific child in need. There is a general duty under section 17(1) to promote the upbringing of children in need within their families and to provide a range of services to meet the needs of children in the area. Those two duties are sufficient when taken together with the obligation to carry out assessments on children who might be in need, and the section 20duty to accommodate children in need when no one else can do so. That should ensure that some of the problems that hon. Members have mentioned do not continue.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister said ''should'' ensure, which implies a degree of doubt. Does she mean that the provisions might ensure that problems do not continue or that they will definitely do so?

Jacqui Smith: I was coming to the action that the Government will take.
 New clause 11 provides that a local authority must provide such assistance as is reasonably required to meet the needs of a child who is assessed as needing accommodation to enable him to live with his family. I have some sympathy with that aim, but I shall resist it for the following reasons. First, it imposes a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation in individual cases in a way that is not mirrored in the other services that are provided to children in need and their families, such as home help or day care. 
 Secondly, the new clause does not deal with the provision of accommodation to children in need whom it is not appropriate to accommodate with their families or as looked-after children. Sometimes authorities need the power to accommodate children away from their families—for example, if they are estranged from their families or if they are 
 unaccompanied asylum seeker. Thirdly, amending schedule 2 as new clause 11 would do would be insufficient to cover accommodation. Our legal advice is that, because a judgment held that section 17 did not cover the matter, we may need to amend that section. I am not sure that new clause 11 would achieve what is necessary. 
 For those technical reasons I ask my hon. Friend not to press her new clauses. I give her a strong assurance that the Government recognise the important issues that the relevant judgments have raised, that we have engaged in consultation across Government and with directors of social services and Shelter, and that we intend to present our own amendments to restore the power under section 17 when we have been able to think about what is necessary to make it effective and considered the possible consequences.

Margaret Moran: With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Jim Fitzpatrick: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I seek your approval for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee at 2.15 pm to consider a draft resolution, a copy of which has been supplied to you, the Clerk and the Opposition.

George Stevenson: Yes, indeed. Such a meeting will be arranged for 2.15 pm.New clause 12 Parental contact with children after separation in cases involving violence or abuse

New clause 12 - Parental contact with children after

'After section 8 in Part 2 of the Children Act 1989 there is inserted— 
 ''8A Contact orders in cases involving family violence 
 (1) Where a court is considering whether to make a residence or contact order in favour of a prohibited person, the court will— 
 (a) consider whether the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering harm as a result of abuse or neglect or through seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person 
 (b) assess the risks involved 
 (c) take all reasonable steps to ensure the protection of the child. 
 (2) For the purposes of this section a person will be defined as a prohibited person if— 
 (a) there is a reason to believe that he has caused or is likely to cause significant harm to a child; or 
 (b) he is facing charges or has been convicted of a violent offence against any member of his family or a former spouse or cohabitee or associated person as defined by section 62 of the Family Law Act 1996; or 
 (c) he is or the court considers he should be prohibited by a non-molestation order or an occupation order or a prohibited steps order or a restraining order or there is an undertaking not to commit acts of violence or intimidation. 
 (3) In considering such matters the standard of evidence applied by the court will be the simple balance of probabilities. 
 8B Section 8A: Supplementary 
 (1) In considering whether the child will be safe if contact or residence is granted to a prohibited person, the court shall, so far as is practicable, have regard to the following matters— 
 (a) the nature and severity of the violence; 
 (b) how recently the violence occurred; 
 (c) the frequency of violence; 
 (d) the risk of further violence occurring; 
 (e) the physical or emotional harm caused to the child by the violence; 
 (f) in relation to the prohibited person— 
 (i) if that person has Schedule one offences (1933) for neglect, physical injury or sexual harm to a child 
 (ii) is subject to current section 47 Children Act 1989 inquiries or has been in the past 
 (iii) if that person is a banned person from employment with children according to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2001 
 (g) in relation to the child and the prohibited person— 
 (i) if the child is on the child protection register 
 (ii) if the child is subject to a protection order according to the Children Act 1989 
 (iii) if the child is subject to current section 47 Children Act 1989 inquiries or has been 
 (h) whether the other party to the proceedings— 
 (i) considers that the child will be safe while the prohibited person has contact with or residence of the child 
 (ii) consents to the prohibited person having contact with or residence of the child; 
 (i) the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them, and having regard to the age and maturity of the child; 
 (j) any steps taken by the prohibited person to prevent further violence occurring; 
 (k) such further matters as the court considers relevant. 
 (2) A person who has suffered abuse is not regarded, for the purposes of this section, as having caused or allowed the child to see or hear the abuse, or, as the case may be, as having put the child, or allowed the child to be put, at risk of seeing or hearing abuse.''.'.—[Margaret Moran.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Margaret Moran: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I shall be as quick as I can. I am sure that we all want to hear the remarks of the Minister so that we can get some of the issues on record. 
 Hon. Members will recall the compelling evidence that we heard from the children's charities Barnardo's, NCH Action for Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children's Society, as well as the written evidence from Women's Aid Federation of England, all expressing grave concerns about the effectiveness of the Children Act 1989 in respect of child contact orders. 
 We all agree with the principle of children maintaining contact with both parents following separation in ordinary circumstances and if it is in their best interests. However, I am sure that hon. Members also agree that children's safety and protection should be ensured. There is serious concern that the system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them. Some children have been killed after the courts granted unsupervised contact to fathers who had abused them. There is widespread concern among children's charities that the Children Act is not effective in ensuring child protection when courts are considering granting contact orders. 
 There is a strong presumption in the Children Act and deriving from case law around the Act that contact is usually in the best interests of the child. However, case law also means that the courts often fail to consider the risk of abuse to children in determining contact arrangements. Children's charities believe that the Act needs to be amended to protect children from unsupervised contact with a parent in cases involving violence and abuse, unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. That will allow the courts an opportunity to ensure that a thorough risk assessment is carried out before unsupervised contact is granted. That is the purpose of new clause 12. 
 Sadly, there is ample evidence to suggest that unsupervised contact can put children at severe risk: 76 per cent. of the children covered by the AMICA—Aid for Mothers Involved in Contact Action—survey of 1999 were found to have been abused to some extent during contact visits. As I explained on Second Reading, we know of 15 cases in recent years in which children have died as a result of contact arrangements in England and Wales, and because the Government do not keep statistics, the true number may well be higher. Every one of those 15 children is just as important as Sarah Payne or any of the other murdered children whom we have mentioned considered in our debates. The new clause is intended to trigger action to prevent further tragedies. 
 We acknowledge that the Government have taken a wide range of measures to protect children. The Sex Offenders Act 1997, which requires sex offenders and violent offenders including schedule 1 offenders to register their name and address with the police. The Protection of Children Act 1999 prevents known offenders from working regularly with children. However, having set up protection for children in those circumstances, it is wrong that there is still a loophole in private law whereby schedule 1 offenders and those known to have been violent or to have abused children are prevented by one piece of legislation from working with children regularly—for example, as school bus drivers—yet they can have unsupervised contact with their children, who are at exactly the same risk of harm. 
 We believe that that major loophole can be addressed in the Bill. We are unlikely to have the opportunity to deal with it in forthcoming legislation, and the urgency of the situation is such that, unless we take this opportunity, further tragedies will occur. The law does not consistently protect children. The child protection system does not consistently protect them from contact with sex offenders or violent offenders. There are glaring gaps in our protection legislation, some of which we have heard about today; there is certainly a loophole in private law. 
 Some attempts have been made to close the loophole through improved legal protection. Guidelines were introduced in June 2001, but they are clearly not working, as evidence from the National Society for the Protection of Children and Women's Aid shows. The need is urgent: children are constantly 
 placed at risk when the courts grant unsupervised contact. Amendment to primary legislation is necessary to provide the right level of legal protection for children in private proceedings. 
 The coalition of Women's Aid and children's charities has emphasised that in cases of domestic violence, there is a risk not only of emotional harm to the child but of the child being abused or neglected. Daily we receive alarming reports of children who are ordered to have contact with violent parents and are abused, neglected or traumatised during those contact visits. There are five on-going cases in which unsupervised contact has been granted despite evidence of child abuse. That is not acceptable. 
 Clause 91 would automatically grant parental responsibility to unmarried fathers who have jointly with the mother registered the birth of the child. That may be of benefit to children, but it extends the possibility of parental contact being granted to violent or abusive unmarried parents. We know of a mother and child who fled to a refuge after being threatened with a gun; the violent father has not been able to find them despite taking out search and locate orders, but once the Bill has been enacted, he can obtain parental responsibility and he will then find it much easier to track them down. 
 We based the new clause on a provision in the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Under that order, when a court is considering whether to grant a contact or residence order to someone who has had a non-molestation order made against him, the court must consider any harm that the child might suffer through seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another person. That is a major step forward—indeed, it is essential, because research shows that all domestic violence has a damaging effect on children. We would like to see that reflected for the first time in the Children Act. 
 However, we are worried that that provision does not go far enough: we need to ensure that the courts are required to protect children from direct abuse or neglect. A case in Northern Ireland involves a woman whose husband is a schedule 1 offender. That man has committed sexual offences against children, but has been granted contact with his children. Contact visits are currently supervised by the mother, despite continuing threats of violence, but he is now seeking unsupervised contact, and the mother's solicitor has warned that it might be granted. We believe that if social services or the police have evidence that a child is at risk, it is essential that the family courts consider it when making contact orders. 
 The new clause deals also with those who are facing charges of violence against former partners. That is necessary, because the fathers of four of the children who were killed had been granted unsupervised contact despite the fact that they already faced imprisonment for violence offences against former partners. We also include a mandatory checklist to ensure that the courts are taking account of all risk. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that this serious issue needs to be addressed.

Robert Walter: I am conscious of the time, Mr. Stevenson. I simply say that the Opposition welcome the new clause.

Rosie Winterton: The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and the other members of the Committee who tabled the new clause. I am grateful also to those organisations that represent children and victims of violence for participating in open and constructive discussions with the Government. I pay tribute to the president of the Family Division for the work that she has done with other senior judges in trying to bring domestic violence and child abuse to the attention of judges and magistrates.
 I say at the outset that the Government accept the spirit of the new clause. Although we cannot accept it, we are seriously considering what we could do on Report to reflect its provisions. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), has been very supportive. 
 I shall briefly set out our thinking on the subject. We need to consider whether it is right to make an amendment relating only to orders for contact and residence under section 8 of the Children Act. That Act contains one definition of harm and it applies in all proceedings including applications for contact when a child is in care. We may be able to do something that would affect private law proceedings and could be extended to other proceedings. We might consider changing family proceeding rules as a way of offering children further protection. That would give us greater flexibility than changing primary legislation. 
 We also have difficulty with the supplementary provisions in proposed new section 8B(1). The problem could be tackled in a number of ways. We are considering changing some of the court forms to deal with previous offences. We might amend the family proceedings rules to ensure greater consistency—for example, to ensure that findings of fact are made about the impact of violence or abuse on a child—in the making of further orders. Perhaps conditions could be imposed on orders, if they are needed for the protection of children and their parents. 
 Suggestions have been made for a domestic violence register. We might consider creating one, as it would cover some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. I assure her that we want to make further proposals on Report, and we shall continue our discussions with her, the all-party domestic violence group and the children's charities. I hope that, with those assurances, my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the motion, and allow us to work together to make progress.

Margaret Moran: With those assurances, and stressing that we believe that there is a need for a change in the Children Act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

George Stevenson: I thank all hon. Members and everyone involved in the work of the Committee.
 It being twenty-five past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.